You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Would you tolerate the same treatment of one of your own family or friends?
We're heading down a dangerous road to fascism if we justify police executing or attempting to execute people on the street, surely we all have a right to a fair trial.
So, if the police force involved were justified in shooting Jacob Blake, then why didn't they shoot this guy?
https://twitter.com/FaztasticMrFox/status/1298029261337563137?s=09
Either way, if that’s true then they may well have good reason to suspect he could be attempting to retrieve a weapon. It’s a horrible situation especially for the kids but if it unfolded as you describe then he has little sympathy from me.
Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?
Your humanity is touching.
Why shoot him in the back
...7 times. 7. Think about that.
Listen to the last 10 seconds of that video Faerie posted:
"he's runnin"
"lucky he ain't black"
"Aw he would ha' been killed, him"
Tells you all you need to know.
While not as serous as a shooting, has everyone seen the video of the Raptors basketball team owner getting pushed by the police officer. The police officer then lied with the standard justification, claiming the owner was threatening and assaulted him first, even tried to sue for damages. Only for his own bodycam footage to (much later) later reveal the truth (the police department tried to not disclose the footage).
Again its not just that the incident happened, it is how empowered the police officer involved felt to lie against and frame his victim, and the force went along with it. Even against someone as rich and powerful as a basketball team owner. How many times do they get away with it when the victim doesn't have the financial means and clout to fight back.
Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?
Shoot him in the Leg or the Arm - You've been watching too many Hollywood films
The real question is one of conflict training, restraint and how you go about de-escalating a situation without resorting to shooting. If he’d been tazered rather than shot he would just be another idiot.
This is what I don't understand. Is it because they just rely on pulling a gun resolving the situation one way or another?
Why shoot him
in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?
I must admit I tend to the no smoke without fire camp but 7 times, in the back, point blank, whilst doing what he was being told, no excuse, no mitigating circumstances, cold blooded murder.
Here goes.
Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives.
The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public. The public are not expected to put their life on the line to protect and serve the police.
A police officer saying they thought their safety 'might' be in jeapordy is never a valid excuse to shoot someone.
If you disagree with this then you are a fascist.
Even against someone as rich and powerful as a basketball team owner.
A small point - he's not the owner, he's a former player and President of operations. Still pretty rich and powerful. The video also shows he wasn't wearing his credentials, which he should have been in order to access areas of the arena that the general public aren't allowed in.
This is what I don’t understand. Is it because they just rely on pulling a gun resolving the situation one way or another?
This is where ''civilians' and police don't understand each other. The US use a completely different use of force model, partly because they are armed and partly because of the risks they face. You can Google the use of force wheel that they use, although it's modified to some degree by different departments. Active resistance, which is defined differently by different departments, which again is a problem, can be anything from running away, to 'assaultive behaviour ( which can be as simple as squaring up) and means the officer can use non lethal responses, including tazer, baton strikes, take downs, carotid holds etc.
If the officers perception is one of danger of injury to themselves or a member of the public, the model allows for lethal force. Officers in the US will draw their weapons as a 'precaution' which is okay from a use of force perspective but is problematic because while some people will either freeze or immediately become compliant, others don't for various reasons. The problem is that it leaves the officer nowhere to go, and makes it difficult to access other tools. You have to take your eyes off the person in front of you to put your weapon away and it leaves you vulnerable while you do that and get out your baton. If you want to see excellent policing based in use of force wheel, Google the video of the arrest of the van driver in Canada who hit several pedestrians.
These officers seemed a bit premature in drawiing their weapons, based on the video but we don't know what they were perceiving based on what they saw. When the guy went to his car and reached in, in the US, where guns are rampant, the officers used lethal force. They would say because of the possibility of him reaching for a weapon.
The people calling, quite rightly, for de-escalation, they are really takin tissue with the use of force model and training, not the officers. And the model isn't racist. The people using it might be, even unconsciously, and incorrectly perceive different levels of risk and response based in the race of the person they are dealing with.
Also, studies show police are really bad at hitting the target in their best approximation of real world situations. So they are taught to double tap ( fire twice) at centre mass. If they perceive any movement, they do it again.
So while some situations, like George Floyd, are really cut and dried, others can be a bit murkier.
Even against someone as rich and powerful as a basketball team owner.
A small point – he’s not the owner, he’s a former player and President of operations. Still pretty rich and powerful. The video also shows he wasn’t wearing his credentials, which he should have been in order to access areas of the arena that the general public aren’t allowed in
This is the problem with this kind of debate. Every incident is treated in isolation, with reasons/excuses given - and then dismissed.
he wasn’t wearing his credentials
in this incident goes no way to justify the behavior of the sheriff - so we need to stop presenting snippets of information like that as if they do. See also the people presenting George Floyd's previous convictions as justification for how the police "managed" that situation, or how "he had a warrant for sexual crimes" justifies shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back.
Sorry, I'm absolutely not saying that you were trying to justify anything, just that these kinds of arguments are often used to do exactly that.
Also - a small point: the video of the raptor's incident clearly shows the guy taking his credentials out of his pocket in order to show them to the sheriff to enter the arena - that's the point at which he was aggressively shoved. A routine interaction needlessly escalated to a physical confrontation..... which is indicative of the whole wider problem.
The point about the raptors president's treatment is one of police accountability. He is only able to hold the police to account for his treatment because of who he is..... so what chance does your average Joe Public have? And more importantly, in this environment of no-accountability (unless you happen to pick the wrong black guy to assault without reason), how will police behaviors ever change?
excellent post Cromolyolly
I don't think this is anything to do with a lack of shared understanding, however. This is obviously the problematic bit:
If the officers perception is one of danger of injury to themselves or a member of the public, the model allows for lethal force. Officers in the US will draw their weapons as a ‘precaution’ which is okay from a use of force perspective but is problematic because while some people will either freeze or immediately become compliant, others don’t for various reasons. The problem is that it leaves the officer nowhere to go, and makes it difficult to access other tools. You have to take your eyes off the person in front of you to put your weapon away and it leaves you vulnerable while you do that and get out your baton.
Unfortunately, what I think has happened (and this speaks slightly to Inksters point) - is that the police have been allowed to skew the way incidents like this are managed, such that it decreases their risk of being hurt/killed, with the trade-off being more false-positives. Ie: There was a chance that I might be at risk, so I shot and killed the guy - but it turned out that I was in no danger at all.
If officers are empowered to use instant, lethal force (ie: by shooting somebody) based upon their perception of risk - they better be damned well trained and psychologically evaluated to ensure that their ability to perceive risk is extremely well developed.
The problem is that it leaves the officer nowhere to go
. Agreed. Drawing a weapon not only escalates the situation for the civilian, but also for the officer themselves. It would be interesting to look at the stats of why guns were initially drawn for "bad" shootings. I wonder if looking at which individuals are drawing their guns more often than others (and in what circumstances) might be a pre-indication of officers who are at risk of a "bad" shooting?
The problem with chromaloys post is that it comments on the reasoning behind the US police use of force and not much else.
No matter how you are trained in the use of lethal force - which can of course be questionable - the application of that force should not be racially biased. Unfortunately, it is. No matter what comes out of this investigation it’s highly likely that guy emptied a clip on the unconscious judgemental bias of lower value of life, colour, and no consideration to the prior events and anxiety of a black family man with three children in a car.
Armed Militia* just killed someone and hit two others at the protests
*White Supremacists
Armed Militia* just killed someone and hit two others at the protests
*White Supremacists
Just exercising their God-given right under the second amendment...
However, I suspect that had the racial profile of the shooters been different then so would the response.
White American does it = constitutional right to bear arms.
Black American does it = state troopers arrive in amtracs and state of emergency is declared.
Shooter identified and manages to tick all the boxes
https://twitter.com/abolishICE___/status/1298544814472888320?s=20
Maybe. But good reason to suspect they could be attempting to retrieve a weapon, doesn’t justify shooting someone...
I did say that or at leats try to. Totally agree with the rest of your post.
Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?
Your humanity is touching.
As teef says, this isn't Hollywood. Have you ever handled a gun? It's not easy and the only pistols I've ever shot are air pistols. They're heavy, they recoil and to get a good shot you need to be standing in a good position.
Here goes.
Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives.
The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public. The public are not expected to put their life on the line to protect and serve the police.
A police officer saying they thought their safety ‘might’ be in jeapordy is never a valid excuse to shoot someone.
If you disagree with this then you are a fascist.
Here goes - you're talking utter mince and to be honest thats just offensive. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that disagreeing with your assertion that the police can be considered fair game makes me a fascist either. Oh and alienating people who otherwise agree with you isn't a particularly clever thing to do. Anyway, FTFY:
The police chose [s]to put their life on the line in order[/s] to protect and serve the public.
The police are the people. They are not paramilitary organisations (in this context, at least not by design). There is a massive issue in the US with their management and tactics as well as , dare I say it, an unfounded sense of entitlement. Thus we get back to the Peel principles.
As teef says, this isn’t Hollywood. Have you ever handled a gun? It’s not easy and the only pistols I’ve ever shot are air pistols. They’re heavy, they recoil and to get a good shot you need to be standing in a good position.
I have, actually, and I can pretty much guarantee that at point blank, a trained policeman can hit you in the leg from behind.
Shooter identified and manages to tick all the boxes
Yup. Footage on social shows the militia folks discussing 'tactics' with the police, getting drinks etc. One said they'd agreed to push the demonstrators towards them. After the guy shot three people, 2 dead, he walked up to police with hands up, and wasn't challenged. They let him go. So how will the US govt spin this one as Antifa etc?
a trained policeman
If the subject was properly trained policemen I doubt we'd even be having this conversation.
FWIW I think you're wrong on this, there is far too much to go wrong and if you missed where will the bullet end up? Across the road? In a bystander? In you? Even if you hit him, at that range do you know for sure it will stop or pass straight through? Always consider your backstop. You haven't at all so it's obvious you are just making stuff up to support a position that, in all honesty, is still beyond reasonable force in this scenario.
You don't think you can get shoot-through of the torso? 🙂
Always consider your backstop.
Ive not watched a single police shooting over the previous few months where that was concern in the slightest, they are poorly trained ill educated chimps with guns.
Former soldier here. Just to add, you never for arms or legs. Always go for the bigger target, so torso shots only. Far too easy to miss arms or legs as they are small and often moving... If you were ever shooting someone, it was always with deadly intent. Guns are not to be used for wounding purposes. You had to know your rules of engagement and be clear that you were following them to the letter.
Just to reiterate, if we ever fired a round at someone, there was only ever one intention. I don’t believe there could ever be a rule of engagement saying “shoot to give someone a bad cut”.
and partly because of the risks they face.
Being a cop in the US isn't actually that dangerous. It doesn't even make the top ten most dangerous jobs. In fact being a truck driver is more dangerous. So really they (the cops) are being fed incorrect information about the dangers they face, I wonder who that could be...
You don’t think you can get shoot-through of the torso?
Far less likely, ever seen ballistic jelly at work? As W00dster says, limb shots aren't a sensible option anyway. If they were I'm sure Jean Charles de Menzies would be sitting on a sizeable compo payment rather than in a grave.
Ive not watched a single police shooting over the previous few months where that was concern in the slightest, they are poorly trained ill educated chimps with guns.
Indeed, but again I refer you to my previous comment:
If the subject was properly trained policemen I doubt we’d even be having this conversation.
They've been half trained to do a job with no real measure of aptitude or competence applied. What's that saying about a little knowledge?
This is the problem with this kind of debate. Every incident is treated in isolation, with reasons/excuses given – and then dismissed.
I think you have to evaluate every incident on its own merit. Or are you suggesting we treat the shoving of a guy with a knife running at a copper the same as a child running towards a copper to give him a sweet?
If your issue is that the Deputy shoved the Raptors guy, I'd say yes, it's a bit OTT but fairly typical of the way US police take control of a situation. If your issue is that he stopped him going on the court them I'd say that is why he is there.
If the raptors guy had been wearing his credentials, as he is supposed to (they come on a lanyard, that's the first clue they should be worn not in your pocket). Or if he had put them on before he got to the deputy (and he's been around the nba a long time he should know this stuff) then the deputy would not have engaged with him at all.
SoI don't think it's fair to say that is dismissive to look at the facts of each case in isolation before attempting to draw broader conclusions.
Former soldier here. Just to add, you never for arms or legs. Always go for the bigger target, so torso shots only. Far too easy to miss arms or legs as they are small and often moving… If you were ever shooting someone, it was always with deadly intent. Guns are not to be used for wounding purposes. You had to know your rules of engagement and be clear that you were following them to the letter.
Just to reiterate, if we ever fired a round at someone, there was only ever one intention. I don’t believe there could ever be a rule of engagement saying “shoot to give someone a bad cut”.
He is standing behind him, close enough for the gun to make contact with the body part he is aiming at, not 2km away looking through the sights of a sniper rifle.
He is a police officer, the rules of engagement are protect and serve.
I think you have to evaluate every incident on its own merit. Or are you suggesting we treat the shoving of a guy with a knife running at a copper the same as a child running towards a copper to give him a sweet?
If your issue is that the Deputy shoved the Raptors guy, I’d say yes, it’s a bit OTT but fairly typical of the way US police take control of a situation. If your issue is that he stopped him going on the court them I’d say that is why he is there.
If the raptors guy had been wearing his credentials, as he is supposed to (they come on a lanyard, that’s the first clue they should be worn not in your pocket). Or if he had put them on before he got to the deputy (and he’s been around the nba a long time he should know this stuff) then the deputy would not have engaged with him at all or more likely just a racist.
SoI don’t think it’s fair to say that is dismissive to look at the facts of each case in isolation before attempting to draw broader conclusions.
How about the bit where the police officer claimed the Raptors guy assaulted him first "with evil intent" and tried to sue for damages, and the bit where the police force tried to suppress the video evidence that proved the victims innocence.
You are trying to find tiny holes to excuse an event of clear racial prejudice and abuse of authority by an empowered hothead with official support from the police department. If you are not aware of the case, don't pretend to have the answers, it makes you look like an apologist for racism.
The problem with chromaloys post is that it comments on the reasoning behind the US police use of force and not much else.
It wasn't meant to, it addressed a specific comment. I am not as comfortable as others ascribing characteristics to other people in the absence of any knowledge. There is no question that there is bias in policing, on race, socio-economic circumstances, mental illness substance dependency etc, as there is in a lot of areas of life. In fact, some studies show the best single predictor of being involved in a shooting by the police is struggling with mental health or substance abuse issues.
That doesn't mean any individual police officer is acting based on racisms at any given time.
For some reason I've just caught up on this. I think the US is now on the brink of full-blown race war. So far the black population and other protesters have shown extraordinary restraint in the face of police and now white supremacist violence. How long before they start shooting back? Given Trumps anarchy-in-the-US campaign message I strongly suspect this isn't a coincidence. A race war is the only card he has left.
I’m not talking about this single event, my comments are for general use of weapons. You can’t use a lethal weapon for non lethal purposes. A pistol, rifle, shotgun, are to be used for lethal intent only. There are other tools available that should be used for non lethal intentions. (I know death can occur but generally a tazer is less likely to kill than a bullet)
Imagine giving permission to use an automatic weapon for non lethal use, there would be awful lot more civil liberty cases than currently.
. So really they (the cops) are being fed incorrect information about the dangers the
I was referencing the quality not quantity. The fact that they face much higher risks of meeting someone armed, someone willing to use violence or a weapon to prevent them from doing their jobs. Farmers, construction, truck drivers etc face much higher risk of death or injury than police but much lower basically non-exist risk of the above.
Just FYI, many police services use ammunition which fragments on impact to minimise the risk of ricochet injury. They are also trained to watch for the risk of crossfire, missed shots, background etc.
I think the US is now on the brink of full-blown race war.
I am seriously worried this is the outcome. Although I think it will be much more than a race war. It has become common and acceptable to demonize anyone who isn't "us" that anyone who isn't 'us' is something less than 'us'. Politics, race, the job they do where they live etc. The factions are so divided and so willing to dismiss the rights of others ( including some of the comments on threads like this).
History has many examples of what happens when you de-humanise people who aren't like you and it never ends well for anyone. I hope they are able to step back from that brink before it's too late. I fear they won't.
w00dster
SubscriberI’m not talking about this single event, my comments are for general use of weapons. You can’t use a lethal weapon for non lethal purposes. A pistol, rifle, shotgun, are to be used for lethal intent only. There are other tools available that should be used for non lethal intentions. (I know death can occur but generally a tazer is less likely to kill than a bullet)
Yup. Basically, talking about shooting to wound only causes problems because the only time you should ever use a gun is to kill something. If the goal isn't to kill, use a tool that's not designed for that job. All embedding the idea of "shoot to wound" would do, is make it even more likely for people to get shot.
Holy blooming wow....
The bacon cajoling with armed white militia....
Bloody hell!
US Civil war v2 on the brink for sure.
I am seriously worried this is the outcome.
The only thing preventing one right now is the reluctance of the protesters to take up arms. I can see why because it will be a bloodbath as they don't stand a chance against the federal government and heavily armed militias. The civil rights people who were around in the 60s know this and thankfully have managed to keep the focus on peaceful protest but I wonder how long they will be able to hold the tide back. All it will take is a few of the gangs to get together and go on a cop-killing spree.
I can see why because it will be a bloodbath as they don’t stand a chance against the federal government and heavily armed militias
At least until November, when hopefully a few adults take over and try to address the issues.
There has been an increasing amount of rebirth of the Black Panther type activism in some areas of the US. Including groups of heavily armed African Americans who are copying the model of the rightish militias. They have so far demonstrated a calm restraint in the face of heavy provocation.
Holy blooming wow….
The bacon cajoling with armed white militia….
That guy with the cross-strap holster talking to the police is the one on the social media vids who shot and killed two people. It did look like some of the protestors trying to get him had handguns.
That guy with the cross-strap holster talking to the police is the one on the social media vids who shot and killed two people
So wait, are the police officially supporting a murderer? How is the militia legal?
US Civil war v2 on the brink for sure.
Yup, the shooter is a member of the Boogaloo Bois. Their aim is to have a second civil war to end Americas problems, they're an extreme right wing group but there's a twist... There's two factions, some are also supporting BLM, perhaps to incite violence and devalue the protests?
It appears that they have the blessing of the police too https://www.ibtimes.co.in/who-are-boogaloo-bois-what-does-boogaloo-movement-want-everything-you-must-know-827103
Charged with murder but, the narratives already been set, he's a hero for the right.
https://twitter.com/clairenjax/status/1298662358894747648?s=19
So, charged with first degree murder, why the FSCK is he out on the streets?
How is the militia legal?
It's in the Constitution. "The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Generally the courts have said that the militia referred to is organised by each state, separate from the US government armed forces, not civilian groups. There is nothing illegal about possession, carrying either openly or concealed, in most states of a firearm, including assault rifles. They are also guaranteed the right to gather in free association. So if a group of heavily armed people want to group themselves together and call themselves a militia, there are no laws being broken. Until they foment insurrection, commit an illegal or terrorist act. Frightening isn't it?
faerie
SubscriberYup, the shooter is a member of the Boogaloo Bois. Their aim is to have a second civil war to end Americas problems, they’re an extreme right wing group but there’s a twist… There’s two factions, some are also supporting BLM, perhaps to incite violence and devalue the protests?
It's really complicated tbh and if it weren't so grim it'd be fascinating. Despite being super right wing, some of these guys genuinely support BLM, because it fits with their own thinking on state power and excessive police intervention etc. You can be as racist as all hell but still be against people getting murdered by the police, is the short version.
He even walks past the police after the incident carrying the weapon, with people shouting "Arrest him, he just shot someone".
The police did nothing.
Remember, this protest was sparked because the police shot an unarmed black man 7 times in the back. The governor has now called in the National Guard, they're stoking the flames. I can't see this ending well
I see that the footage of him being tackled by bystanders after the shooting is being falsely circulated as being the initial shooting- ie, people are claiming he was being attacked and fired only in self defence.
So, charged with first degree murder, why the FSCK is he out on the streets?
Presumably that footage was shot before he did. Presumably.
The factions are so divided and so willing to dismiss the rights of others ( including some of the comments on threads like this).
History has many examples of what happens when you de-humanise people who aren’t like you and it never ends well for anyone.
Absolutely this.
I think the US is now on the brink of full-blown race war.
Remember when we used to laugh at such a concept then take pity on the deluded nazi that came out with it? I miss those days 🙁
It's odd how much life imitates art, it's like someone, somewhere is a big 2000ad fan and has thought "that looks pretty good actually". Who will police the police?
w00dster Subscriber
I’m not talking about this single event, my comments are for general use of weapons. You can’t use a lethal weapon for non lethal purposes. A pistol, rifle, shotgun, are to be used for lethal intent only. There are other tools available that should be used for non lethal intentions. (I know death can occur but generally a tazer is less likely to kill than a bullet)
Some of the confusion seems to have partly come about due to the attention given to the possibility of the RUC and army operating a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. People have made the assumption from the term that the alternative was shoot-to-wound, or something like that.
As I understand it, what shoot-to-kill actually means is that a suspect is shot without warning, and without being given an opportunity to surrender first.
Squirelking,
Where did I say the Police were fair game. Your twisting my words like a Talk Radio host would. Or if not deliberately twisting you are misunderstanding the relationship between the public and the state.
The safety of the public should always matter more than the Police officer. Otherwise we live in a fascist state where we serve the state rather than the state serving us.
For reference, I quoted the words "Black Lives matter more than blue lives" from a video uploaded by a black American police officer. Perhaps she can explain it to you. She helpfully explains all of the points raised by other posters on this thread in the last 24 hours.
I knew what I said would be contentious, thus the 'here goes' introduction. I did that because I'm tired of skirting around some of the whataboutery that has appeared on this forum the last 3 months. I'm tired of the police being proffered some 'special status. They do a job that they chose to do and as Nick c pointed out, It doesn't even come close to being the most dangerous job
Respect needs to be earned not demanded. If you proffer respect to an institution without subjecting it to scrutiny then you are subservient to the idea of a fascist state.
The manner in which we sentimentalise those who serve is a slippery slope to fascism. This craze for sentimentalism began with the death of Diana and has since been exploited by those who would design an authoritarian state with a subservient population.
It never used to be like this. I'm old enough to remember the Falklands War, where those who died were buried where they fell, in the same manner in which soldiers who had gone before them had been for Centuries. Then we had the Iraq War, where Tony Blair decided to give the fallen the 'Diana' treatment, euolgising and sentimentalising them rather than seeing them for what they were. They were Warriors, not saints. This sentimental tendency has become an all encompasing political tool that can be applied to the to the Police, the NHS and other agencies for the purpose of remindimg us that we are not worthy.
This sentimentalism is insidious and has began to invade all discourse. It is virtue signalling in the most dangerous form. It gives those like squirelking the opportunity to point the finger at me and accuse me of declaring open season on the Police, employing a hunting metaphor to insinuate that I am encouraging people to attack them.
Squirelking is playing the same game of culture wars as Trump and Johnston. I am not accusing him of having the same nefarious intent as those two scumbags but I am suggesting that he is naive and has become a pawn who is being manipulated by those who aim to sow discord.
I'm sure squirelking is nice guy and not a fascist but he should really take a look at himself before he accuses me of advocating violence. He needs to find a way of thinking for himself and stop getting caught up in the web of sentimantalism that is being spun around us.
Where did I say the Police were fair game.
Okay, let's just rewind to what you said:
Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives.
The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public. The public are not expected to put their life on the line to protect and serve the police.
A police officer saying they thought their safety ‘might’ be in jeapordy is never a valid excuse to shoot someone.
If you disagree with this then you are a fascist.
So, let's begin.
Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives.
You are dehumanising these people as "blue lives". You then say their lives matter less than anyone elses. So from that statement I drew my 'open season' comment.
They are people, and like people represent a diverse (and sometimes not so) range of backgrounds and reasons for doing what they do. Without wanting to go "not all men" you should be mindful of that.
The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public. The public are not expected to put their life on the line to protect and serve the police.
That may be so but that doesn't make it a suicide mission. Even in this country we have a right to defend ourselves and, in the case of NI can still use guns to do so, otherwise you may use a "weapon of opportunity".
A police officer saying they thought their safety ‘might’ be in jeapordy is never a valid excuse to shoot someone.
And again, I draw your attention to the right to self defence.
If you disagree with this then you are a fascist.
I disagree entirely. So I'm a fascist?
But onwards:
I knew what I said would be contentious, thus the ‘here goes’ introduction. I did that because I’m tired of skirting around some of the whataboutery that has appeared on this forum the last 3 months. I’m tired of the police being proffered some ‘special status. They do a job that they chose to do and as Nick c pointed out, It doesn’t even come close to being the most dangerous job.
It was contentious because you basically made a particularly distasteful statement without a shred of irony then signed off declaring that anyone who disagreed was a fascist. I'm sorry but there's only one person trying to suppress opposition to their views and sure as * isn't me.
Respect needs to be earned not demanded. If you proffer respect to an institution without subjecting it to scrutiny then you are subservient to the idea of a fascist state.
Nobody is disagreeing with this, least of all me. At all. If you'd bothered reading my later posts instead of concocting this word soup of feeble character assassination you might have noticed that.
This sentimentalism is insidious and has began to invade all discourse. It is virtue signalling in the most dangerous form. It gives those like squirelking the opportunity to point the finger at me and accuse me of declaring open season on the Police, employing a hunting metaphor to insinuate that I am encouraging people to attack them.
You have declared that their lives matter less and it is never acceptable to defend themselves. "They knew what they were signing up for".
Squirelking is playing the same game of culture wars as Trump and Johnston. I am not accusing him of having the same nefarious intent as those two scumbags but I am suggesting that he is naive and has become a pawn who is being manipulated by those who aim to sow discord.
I’m sure squirelking is nice guy and not a fascist but he should really take a look at himself before he accuses me of advocating violence. He needs to find a way of thinking for himself and stop getting caught up in the web of sentimantalism that is being spun around us.
Okay, first off, that's just rude. At least have the decency to address me directly.
I'm playing no such game and your suggestion is well off the mark. I am being objective and not afraid of calling people out on either side, even if I otherwise agree with them. I'm getting sentimental about nothing other than the fact that police are still human beings. That isn't promoting a "culture war" that's just being a decent *** person! If you actually knew me at all you would know I've been nothing but critical of this backslapping circle-jerk echo chamber for years, I actually take time to listen to people even if I disagree with them and I don't suffer fools gladly. Maybe you should be the one learning to think for himself and try to gain a bit of empathy and humanity whilst you're at it.
I'll repeat what cromolyolly said:
History has many examples of what happens when you de-humanise people who aren’t like you and it never ends well for anyone.
If you want to be the better person, start now.
Given Inksters admission on another thread that he likes to provoke people, he's on the list of people who I now take with a pinch if salt on here. 🙄
Which is self defeating as he often makes valid points amongst the posturing.
Discussion and observation shouldn't just be about manipulating words ('tropes') and accusing someone of being a whateverlabel. Scoring right-on virtue points is pathetic when looking at serious current events. You get the odd 'Jeremy, peace be upon him' type comment but just take that in as someone's current level of consciousness. Calling them a fascist (you do need to check up on the defining features of fascism) and winning yourself a rainbow badge is an attempt to end discussion and just have an accusatory screaming and screeching contest instead. Some people might like that but for many this board is informative, funny, discursive, helpful and is much more than bum jokes and self-righteously 'calling people out'.
Anyway, anyone not seen it, check out the little YT on Christian Cooper and his sister, what a cool dude!
More cash,
The other day on the Dawn Butler thread you suggested I cared too much about racism. That isn't taking me with a pinch of salt, that's throwing chilli powder in my face.
Squirrelking,
I quoted the phrase from a black American police officer. Her contention was that you had to explain the situation as crudely as that before the penny would drop. If you are calling me out for making that comment then you are calling her out too.
An extrodinary amount of unarmed black people die after being shot by police in the US. An extrodinary number of police face no sanction because they use the excuse 'I thought my life was in danger'. This has led to a situation where the safety of the Police is put before the safety of the public. The officer in the video was aware that her first duty is to protect the public, not to protect herself. She asserted that many of her follow officers neither follow nor understand this principle.
You took a phrase that I quoted from a police officer and from it construed that I saw the Police as "fair game". To understand the role of the police in a democracy is not to 'dehumanise them. My follow up post talked about how we sentimentalise the Police and others who serve and how that has been employed in a culture war. The speed with which you lept to accuse me of dehumanising the police suggests to me you are caught up in this dangerous web of sentimentality.
Anyhow, you don't have to listen to me, or respond to me either. You could listen to the video I linked to. In it the officer presented the problem in a conceptual way, with extraordinary clarity and articularcy.
Gary Younge's always worth a squiz (if it hasn't been done):
You took a phrase that I quoted from a police officer and from it construed that I saw the Police as “fair game”.
Not that I want to interfere in this bunfight, but if we look at it as a race/culture war then it's fairly easy to argue that the police are fair game, and are not humans, but combatants. The only thing that prevents a descent into violence is mutual respect and/or fear. The police in the US long ago gave up any pretence of respecting black lives, and the only thing preventing escalation is the unbelievable restraint of the black community and the fear of what might happen if they took up arms. I'm surprised they haven't already to be honest. Lets not forget that in this case the police are the aggressors, and are not defending themselves.
"So while I agree with people who say no one is born racist, it remains a powerful system that we’re immediately born into. It’s like being born into air: you take it in as soon as you breathe. It’s not a cold that you can get over. There is no anti-racist certification class. It’s a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world. It is a thing you have to keep scooping out of the boat of your life to keep from drowning in it. I know it’s hard work, but it’s the price you pay for owning everything."
Scott Woods
I can understand Inksters perspective, it's extremely difficult to moderate fear, frustration and anger when racism is highly emotive and a lived reality for some of us, whilst for others it's just the topic du jour. Being white I've got cheek to say I'm tired of arguing about racism, but I can't walk away because I'm emotionally and physically invested in it. Each time there's something on the news about racism my young girls get physically and verbally abused, the Danny Baker photo earned them 3 beatings; and I was labelled an extremist for saying that casual racist banter is not ok. I lost my job because of the frequency of calls from the school or the police. I've had to explain to the Head of Education and a Chief Superintendent what institutional and systemic racism is, out of a dozen incidents of abuse including children, adults and a teacher there's been 2 teenagers charged and that was for theft rather than the racist abuse.
There's no doubt that the police have a difficult job, I couldn't handle the pressure they're under. Whilst I respect the individual, I don't agree with the institution which does have militarised ethics and comradery based on class, gender, race and sex. As they are in a position of power these views are often amplified, especially at the moment. Looking at the figures lockdown has exposed the huge inequalities between people who experience racism and those who do not, which have been fuelled by the deaths of black people; including here in the UK when the officers took selfies with two murdered sisters after a BLM protest. Is that how my kids are viewed when they need police assistance?
It's a difficult but necessary discussion, one I've learned to listen to without comment until I am informed and calm enough to offer a qualified opinion.
Be kind.
I’m playing no such game and your suggestion is well off the mark.
Are you the same person who said on the previous page that you had no sympathy for Jacob Blake? Obvious troll is obvious.
History has many examples of what happens when you de-humanise people who aren’t like you and it never ends well for anyone.
Now ,where's that Ebike thread ? 😛
I quoted the phrase from a black American police officer.
With absolutely zero context. The context wasn't set until I challenged you on it. Having looked at it I context I can now see what you were saying but it should be quite obvious that your original statement has a very different meaning in the way you said it.
Are you the same person who said on the previous page that you had no sympathy for Jacob Blake? Obvious troll is obvious.
Again, context. I made that statement under the condition that the version of events faerie presented was true. They may or may not be and she was careful to say as much however given recent events you would have to be pretty stupid to think breaking your restraints and walking off to a vehicle in order to do one of several things is a good idea. I have in no way endorsed the polices actions but if someone chose to run across a busy motorway as a shortcut and got injured I wouldn't blame the driver that hit them either. Sure, they could perhaps have done things differently but they got to where they were via their own free will.
Disagreement is not trolling but you're right, my statement is as contextually deficient as inksters so I apologise for not making it clearer.
Oh FWIW I saw friend has posted something on Facebook with the same sentiment but rather less ambiguous terminology:
Blue lives don't exist
Stop drawing equivalence between racial identity and a job.
Your career is a choice, being black isn't.
Sends the same message but doesn't need an entire explaination to put it in context.
I have in no way endorsed the polices actions but if someone chose to run across a busy motorway as a shortcut and got injured I wouldn’t blame the driver that hit them either. Sure, they could perhaps have done things differently but they got to where they were via their own free will.
ah so the copper was already shooting his gun and Jacob Blake was foolish enough move in front of him.
"If we're required to comply with the police without question under any circumstances or face penalty of death, then we have no civil liberties"
Bree Newsome
Blue lives don’t exist
Sorry that's bollox. I might be a little behind in this little spat, but it's not just a job. You can't equate it to a racial identity, but you can equate it to combatants in a war. I wouldn't say the same of police in the UK as thankfully we still have a (fairly) strong social contract, but In the US the cops are no different to soldiers. When they put on the uniform they stop being human and start being someone's enemy. Just like soldiers if they don't like it the dehumanising aspect of their job they don't have to join up.
"Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives."
I think this is almost right, but not quite. Lives matter equally but are spent/risked/lost differently. When you send a soldier into a war zone, you're not saying that their life doesn't matter or is less important than another life; you're saying that this life matters but it is still worth risking.
Or to put it differently, your life matters just as much when you do something that risks it.
But their are professions, life choices, sports, etc that are inherently risky. Literally the reason we have fire fighters, soldiers, police forces is to do things that most people wouldn't. If someone is trapped in a building, the fire service doesn't say "well our team's lives don't matter" or "our people's lives are less important", but they will still take people who're perfectly safe in a station, and put them into a burning building, because THAT'S THE ****ING POINT.
Blue lives matter logic would lead to them setting fire to the building in advance to make sure that it couldn't go on fire and risk their lives later.
When Echo chambers go bad...
Inkster - Please quote me saying that.
Though that was one of the threads that made me come to the conclusion that whilst I agree with most of your points of view on several issues on the forum, I dislike the way you put them across.
Reading this thread has caused me to think about things I hadn't really thought about,which I guess is good.
When you send a soldier into a war zone, you’re not saying that their life doesn’t matter or is less important than another life;
Historically, that was the basic thought. Still is in some places. Soldiers where entirely expendable, cannon fodder that had less value than a piece of land. Sums were done, if the price in human lives was acceptable, it was done.
Literally the reason we have fire fighters, soldiers, police forces is to do things that most people wouldn’t. I
Yes, except now it's only within acceptable risk. And what has been viewed as acceptable has changed. I worked with a guy who spent his days calculating how much damage/injuries/death a particular process might cause, and recommending ways to get that below a particular threshold. The threshold was never zero though.
And maybe that is the Crux of it. Things have changed. We no longer accept losses of thousands of soldiers. We realise they are people with value and we shouldn't waste their lives. Same with coppers, fire service etc.
Problem is, some groups have been left behind. We haven't yet got to the point where their lives are as important to us. We haven't yet got to the point where we are ready and willing to do the work, to spend the money to take the steps to change the things that need to change to demonstrate that we value their lives as much as others. I'm not just talking about race, either.
It bothers me every time I read someone say gammon, f*$&info car driver, f@#cking biker, etc. because I realise where that leads. We seem to be doing it more as a society, not less. And that worries me.
It bothers me every time I read someone say gammon, f*$&info car driver, f@#cking biker, etc. because I realise where that leads. We seem to be doing it more as a society, not less. And that worries me.
Very well put, all of your post in fact. While I despise their views, I hate terms like "gammon" in discussions as it dehumanises the person as well as their opinion, and brings you down to their level.
I can't see how using personal insults brings any moral or intellectual weight to your argument, it just makes you sound nasty and vindictive.
And I'm sure you can find examples of me doing it on here at times. 🙄🤣
And I’m sure you can find examples of me doing it on here at times. 🙄
Me too. I'm no saint. I'm just getting better at realising when I shouldn't have done/said something.
ah so the copper was already shooting his gun and Jacob Blake was foolish enough move in front of him.
What? No! FFS...
In both cases the elevated danger the people found themselves in was a direct result of failing to comply with easy rules or instructions. I shouldn't even need to explain that. Or are you suggesting he's totally blameless for resisting arrest, escaping custody and making for his car whilst being ordered to stop what he's doing knowing full well the current climate?
the elevated danger the people found themselves in was a direct result of failing to comply with easy rules or instructions
You seem to be suggesting that a failure to comply with the police warrants a death sentence, is that really the kind of country you want to live in?
Given the current climate it's understandable why he was trying to escape, black people don't have the privilege of the same level of justice that white people are afforded. He's already been judged as guilty of what ever crime the warrant was for, although we're not aware if the police knew that he was wanted before they tackled him. Don't black people deserve the same level of respect and protection that white people receive?
Bearing in mind that it was white malitia openly carrying a gun who killed 2 people and then walked past the police with his hands up, whilst people were shouting that he'd just shot 3 people. Yet you are justifying the attempted execution on the street of a black man?
This is the kind of thinking that has brought us into this situation.
You seem to be suggesting that a failure to comply with the police warrants a death sentence
Clearly not but there are some parallels with I had right of way argument as the you go through the windscreen of the BMW being driven by a drugged up tosser.
I get it could be totally out of control whether you live or die at the hands of American police, especially if you are black but sometimes not antagonize the tosser might just save your life.
You seem to be suggesting that a failure to comply with the police warrants a death sentence, is that really the kind of country you want to live in?
Given the current climate it’s understandable why he was trying to escape, black people don’t have the privilege of the same level of justice that white people are afforded. He’s already been judged as guilty of what ever crime the warrant was for, although we’re not aware if the police knew that he was wanted before they tackled him. Don’t black people deserve the same level of respect and protection that white people receive?
The answer to your question is obviously yes. And yes it's understandable he would want to not be involved with the US justice system. But whoever you are, whatever colour you are, resisting arrest is never going to make thinga better. Moving away from officers who have you at gunpoint and reaching into your car is going to make things much, much worse. It is entirely understandable that you might not act rationally when in a situation like that where fear and adrenaline are so high but I think it is totally fair to say that had he not resisted, had he not reached into his car, he might be in jail but he would probably be in much better condition. That's just factual. Is it victim blaming to point out actions he took that contributed to the outcome. I don't believe so but someone might.
But calling an execution just inflames the situation. As does that tweet. Coat Gilbert said lack of empathy is the root of evil. I think we need more empathy not less
I provided a quote without any context because the the paradigm that the quote contains doesn't need any context. Any truth in the statement is self contained. Does the meaning of the phrase differ depending on wether I say it or a black American police officer says it? Does the statement have two meanings?
Of course I am being provocative, without provocation there will be no change. Of course I knew there would be those who would 'take the bait'. My intention was to draw out the degree to which we sentimentalise the lives of some and not others. This sentimentalism has been exploited for political gain, both here and in the US in a way that has all the hallmarks of fascism, both explicit and benign.
We now live in a world where Boris will instruct us to bang pots and pans for the NHS with the underlying insinuation that if you don't comply you are somehow a bad person. I did my bit of banging at first but after a while I found the whole thing a bit insidious so I stopped. It all felt a bit 1884.
I'm not calling you a fascist squirellking, I simply left a box with the lid open and you jumped in. I'm not taping the box up just yet, I'm just asking you to consider wether you might have been seduced by certain narratives which appear good hearted on the surface but may have darker and coercive undertones.
I am being no more provocative that that spitfire flying over my head with 'thank you NHS' written across its underside. To criticise that makes you both unpatriotic and uncaring at the same time. It's not supporting the NHS, it's a subtle way of politicizing covid, dividing the country and having a poke at 'ze Germans' in a triple whammy, virtue signalling **** fest. Maybe we can paint the same message on the next cruise missile we launch at the Middle East.
chill out matesorry I over stepped, thought that was a funny comment, now realise it wasn't
FTFY